Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
D.DASH
Mahendra Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Baina Dhada – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant disputes decree and judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff asserts ownership and possession. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. lower appellate court found sales void. (Para 5 , 11) |
| 4. parties argue over legality of transactions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. selling without permission void under olr act. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 6. appeal dismissed, no costs ordered. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Section-100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) has called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge (FTC), Balasore in Munsif Appeal No.3 of 1989-I.
The present Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in the suit before the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff’s case:-
4. The Defendant No. 3 alone contested the suit. In his written statement, he states that the Defendant No. 1 having agreed to sale the said land to him had received part consideration amount and had executed an unregistered agreement for sale. Pursuant to the said agreement, the Defendant No. 1 had delivered the possession of the suit land to him and accordingly, he has been in possession of the suit land. The Defendant N
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
